A Fall in the Right Direction: The Court of Appeals Requires More Than Just a Fall to Show a Violation of New York Labor Law § 240

As you may be aware, New York Labor Law § 240 imposes strict liability against owners and contractors for height-related accidents. New York Labor Law § 240(1), also known as the scaffold law, provides in relevant part:

All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.

Cases in New York State involving falls from a ladder have persistently proven to be arduous claims to defend against. Significantly, plaintiffs’ attorneys have relied on prior rulings that established that, if a ladder fails in some manner (i.e., it moved, shifted or swayed) because it was unsecured, then it was inherently inadequate to perform the work and, therefore, the use of the ladder was a per se violation of New York Labor Law § 240. When being faced with case of a fall from a ladder, defense counsel faces a seemingly insurmountable task of succeeding on liability.

But wait—all hope is not yet lost. In the recent decision of Cutaia v. Board of Managers of the 160.170 Varick Ste. Codo., 190 N.E.3d 28 (N.Y. 2022), the Court of Appeals held that questions of fact existed regarding whether “the ladder failed to provide the proper protection,” whether the “plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices,” and whether the ladder’s purported inadequacy or the absence of additional safety devices was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident.

In Cutaia, the plaintiff was using a ladder to cut and re-route ceiling pipes. Due to space limitations, the plaintiff leaned an A-frame ladder in its closed position against the wall. During the course of his work, he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder. The plaintiff had no recollection of whether the ladder had failed thereby precipitating his fall. The Appellate Division, First Department, like its brethren before it, held that the failure to properly secure the ladder was the precise foreseeable elevation-related risk against which Section 240(1) was designed to protect. Accordingly, the use of the ladder was a per se violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1).

In a departure from the long-standing proposition that a fall from a non-defective ladder in and of itself is a violation of the Labor Law, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, holding that “questions of fact exist[ed] as to whether ‘the ladder failed to provide proper protection,’ and whether ‘plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices.’” In simple terms, the court questioned whether the ladder itself was defective, and required more than just a showing of a fall to prove a violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1).

The Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Cutaia appears to be a welcome lifeline to the defense bar. Hopefully, gone are the days of plaintiffs’ counsels’ reliance upon the mere use of a ladder to support and prove a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. After the Cutaia decision, plaintiffs’ counsel will now need to establish that the ladder was defective or failed in some manner, or that it was not the proper device to accomplish a task. Notably, the fact that the ladder shifted, moved or swayed is not enough to show a violation.

The long-established principles of proximate cause will once again become a factor in deciding whether a fall from a ladder is a violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiffs will need to show that the ladder was defective. Defense counsel may now establish that the plaintiff failed to properly secure or set up the ladder, and argue that, since the ladder was not defective, liability should not attach.

*Jim is special counsel in our Melville, New York, office. He can be reached at 631.227.6329 or jmboyce@mdwcg.com.

_{Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}